Slashdot Mirror
Switzerland Tops IPv6 Adoption Charts; US Lags At 4th
hypnosec writes "According to recent statistics, Switzerland has topped the IPv6 adoption charts by leapfrogging Romania, which led the charts for nearly a year. According to Google, Switzerland's adoption stands at 10.11 percent — the highest for any country. Romania, on the other hand, has an adoption rate of 9.02 percent, followed by France at 5.08 percent. Switzerland took the top position near the end of May and the primary reason seems to be Swisscom and its drive to adopt the next IP version. The U.S. stands at fourth place with just 2.76 percent adoption."
I'd say the largest economy in the world is probably not lagging by being fourth, considering the shear amount of equipment in use, and that the three preceding countries are considerably more compact. Big ships make wide turns.
We are in news that's not about horse meat. HELL YEAH!
This seems to be a way to try and take a case where the US is doing decent and instead make it bad and hate on the US. So the US is 4th, out of 196 nations, some of which have very little infrastructure? Sounds like it is doing s decent job to me. Particularly since the US has a ton of infrastructure, some of it older (given that the Internet started in the US) and that the IPv4 shortage is not as acute there since the US has a lot of blocks allocated to it.
The US doesn't have to be first in everything, it isn't a case of "anything other than first is a failure."
IPv6 adoption is going to be a slow process. There's a lot to doing it right. In particular you find plenty of equipment either flat out doesn't support IPv6, or doesn't support it in hardware, meaning that it can't do much of it without falling over.
Fine, show me a similarly sized city in the USA with higher IPv6 adaption.
You know there are these neat things called "google" and "wikipedia".
Switzerlands population is 8million.
There is only one city in the US with a larger population - New York. There are only 9 cities with a population of over 1 million.
So what is a "regular" city?
And what is the IPv6 penetration in this city? (I.E. your argument is not just wrong but also ridiculous).
Watch this Heartland Institute video
If you RTFA you find that the 10.11% figure they are reporting is for hits Google has had from web browsers using IPv6. What's more, the article only compares a small number of countries. If you add Japan into the mix it pushes USA to 5th place.
If you look at some of the other charts, you can see that USA is top with the most IPv6 alive prefixes, announced prefixes, allocated prefixes and web servers.
So this is about household adoption of IPv6, not overall adoption. Without businesses providing services from servers via IPv6 the end user adoption would be pretty pointless.
Even the article points out that using another statistics gathering method, employed by Cisco, you get different results (still showing a similar ordering of adoption in different countries, but adoption percentages are completely different). So I'd be a bit wary of trusting the statistics here.
It is interesting to see from the charts that there's been a big push in Switzerland in the last month and how much ISPs pushing IPv6 can therefore help adoption... and that should be message to all the other ISPs out there, get on with pushing IPv6 to your customers.
There is a nice report on from the OECD on the quality of health care systems. And a short summary on the US system compared to the rest of the OECD countries http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/HealthSpendingInUSA_HealthData2012.pdf
Irrelevant. US is 4th on the list, and if one looks at all countries, there are countries both bigger and smaller than the US that are way behind. All countries have a long way to go before they can be actively using IPv6
Yeah, let me know which of your software works well with the Streaming Internet Protocol, which is what IPv5 is.
I'm still working on IP5
Yeah you should do that before upgrading to IE6.
Despite NAT, you still have all those complaints about your e-mail being read, your data access being known and so on. NAT is not and has never been a security mechanism on its own. There is no anonymity, since any website that receives an access request has to route that data back to the original requestor, not just to the NAT boxes in between.
Actually, NAT is not the direct issue here. The issue is IPv4 address depletion - it's already happened at the level of the RIRs, and will next happen at the level of national registries. As that shortage hits downstream, that's when people will find IPv4 addresses being rationed, and connections being at a premium. And this is where the preparedness will make a difference: countries that are ready for it can switch relatively painlessly, as opposed to those that ain't.
Honestly, I don't get why entities that are capable of IPv6 support, be it companies, ISPs and so on - that have all the IPv6 compatible equipment - don't start switching now. There is nothing to be gained by waiting, and the first step is in any case going to be a transition to dual-stack, not IPv6-only. So do that, and over time - maybe decades, IPv4 can start getting deprecated.
it was never known as IPv5
rewriting history since 2109
... because all the porn, music, movie, and warez sites are moving to IPv6 to hide.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
There's only ONE exactly like that, but the network allocation of 2001:0db8 has 79,228,162,514,264,337,593,543,950,333 of them (not counting a few needed to manage the space). Too bad it's all reserved, so not even you can have one like that.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Perhaps they're complaining about not being able to access a particular web site because Internet Explorer for Windows XP and Android Browser for Android 2.x can see only the first SSL certificate on port 443 of a given IP address. These browsers don't support Server Name Indication, which is required for name-based virtual hosting with HTTPS. For example, https://pineight.com/ works on most browsers but gives a certificate error on IE/XP and Android 2 because pineight.com shares an IPv4 address with other customers of the same hosting company. So either they have to log in insecurely or the site has to put up a paywall or other source of revenue in order to be able to afford a dedicated IPv4 address for use with pre-SNI SSL stacks. IPv6 would make name-based virtual hosting (and thus Server Name Indication) less critical.
Someone should do the per capita stats.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Quite the opposite, I am seeing an ever-widening Internet as the pacific rim regions that have run out of IPv4 addresses allocate only on IPv6, while you don't see any of it. The value is obvious, being able to see the whole net versus being able to see only a part of it.
But it's your choice to be smalltown and to willfully narrow your net horizons, I can't help you there.
Hey! That's the combination to my luggage!
And sometimes I wonder if you ACs are actually all just one guy talking to himself. It's actually more comfortable imagining that you are.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I understand that IPv4 will be present for a long time. We will still have the old addresses and things will still be using them. I suspect that one can configure a router to dish out IPv4 addresses and handle IPv6 traffic at the same time. It seems trivial enough though I'm not an expert. I'm *fairly* well read on the IPv6 configurations, methods, and whatnot but I'm not employed in the field (I'm retired) so I don't have any deep knowledge but it seems fairly trivial to still accomplish what you're looking for.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
No more Bittorrent, nobody will have an open port range.
I'm curious to see how piracy will be impacted if CG-NAT really gets implemented widely. Most of warezing happens in P2P manner and, unable to accept incoming connections means a big hit for that kind of systems. Some MAFIAA representative must already be rubbing hands together and laughing maniacally there somewhere. I wonder if some Pirate Party would then try launching its own ISP where the selling point is to have a real IP address.
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
If you add other countries, the US is not fourth place any more, so the chart is totally misleading.
Whohoo! Canada is roughly tied with the UK at 0.2%.
I'm pretty sure that figure is inflated, as it equals 1.4 computers.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Yeah, but how many levels of NAT do you want, or does a system support? A network has one routable address NATed into, say, several Class C domains, and finds that it still ain't enough. What then? Does it then NAT those NATed addresses even further? How deep does that work?
The main 'security feature', that incidentally comes along w/ NAT, is a firewall. In IPv6, one would still have that, and the same permission rules, implemented properly, would demarcate blacklisted and whitelisted addresses.
You got it wrong. IPv4 is the one doomed because is used far beyond the scale it was meant for. Probably big part of the blame should go to the industry behind, that still now is making hardware that only supports ipv4, or doing mass installations using that kind of hardware (afaik Uruguay is doing a countrywide fiber optic installation, and what is being installed in every home right now don't support ipv6)
With all the surveillance going on, emails of journalists being read, that big database in Utah, and ex CIA men telling you everything you do is logged, 6 month old emails considered fair game, SWIFT data being selectively leaked by the US etc. etc. etc., I quite like being behind my ISP's big NAT server.
IP6 would remove any anonymity NAT gives me, and I'm not really sure I'll gain any benefit from it.
Email problems can be alleviated by more companies and people being responsible for their own systems again instead of using gmail and placing too much trust in third parties.
If ad companies have no problem tracking individual systems behind nats using a number of technologies.. cookies, environment fingerprinting, cache fingerprinting, dns fingerprinting, flash cookies...etc I'm less certain of realizable practical benefits.
Finally my understanding with CGN deployment there are mapping protocols which allocate determinstic blocks of source ports to each user such that when you connect to a remote site even though the IP Address is the same your source port is always within a range that uniquely identifies you anyway.
I'm not saying there are not advantages to ducking behind a NAT or you don't have a point but I think if you take the longer view and weigh the cost/benefits to freedom that comes with possibility of restoring the Internet to a network of peers then it becomes possible for people to bypass central systems and communicate directly which far outweighs any negative component.
That part is true. But back then allocations only came in three sizes. Those allocations really were of the smallest size, which would cover their need. That practice was changed soon enough to avoid problems. Slowing down the allocation of IP addresses and not having any of the already allocated addresses handed back would have given enough time, that IPv6 could have been deployed.
The only problem was, that nobody did. People just kept going on deploying more and more IPv4 networks and ignoring IPv6. Other workarounds came along, which stretched the supply of IPv4 addresses even further. The truth is, those workarounds have caused more problems than they solved. They were not necessary in the first place, there was plenty of time to deploy IPv6. The workarounds mean that we now have a much bigger Internet that needs to be converted, which means more work, and it is more expensive. But worse than that, the workarounds are actually part of the reason transitioning to IPv6 is so damn hard. Had IPv4 been free from any NAT, it would have been easier to have IPv4 and IPv6 co-exist.
Some people suggest those early players should hand back those addresses. It wouldn't solve any problem. It would have delayed the problem by a few months. But the problem would have returned and been just a tad worse. Also, it is a myth that those addresses are unused. Even if they are not all advertised in BGP, they may be used internally on systems, which also need to communicate with the public Internet. Hence they cannot be reused without breaking some communication. And even if they could be handed back, the amount of work it would take to ensure they are really not used plus the administrative overhead, means it is just not worth the effort. All that effort would be better spent working on a real solution.
All of those addresses, which could possibly have been handed back would have been used already in 2011. IANA ran out of addresses in early 2011, and APNIC was growing fast at the time.
That's only true, because they already have. Rationing of IPv4 addresses is happening already, and it is affecting end users. The problems end users experience will get worse over time. But very few people understand the connection between the problems they are experiencing and shortage of IP addresses.
But that won't help. There aren't addresses to reallocate. Extrapolate the curve from before IPv4 addresses and ignore the limit. Then you'll find consumption would reach 200% before the end of this decade. No redistribution of IP addresses will solve that. Also redistribution of IP addresses is a problem in itself. Every time you break up a block and redistribute the addresses, the address space gets more fragmented. This fragmentation means more routing table entries, which consume costly CAM resources on the backbone routers. This is a side effect of stretching the utilization of addresses too far.
Research has shown that you should not expect to utilize more than 80-90% of the bits in an address, if that address is supposed to be used for routing. That means you should not expect to utilize 32 bits of the IPv4 addresses, but only 26-29 bits.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Instead of the per-ip-address stats?
Basicly your data means that the U.S. spend about 50% more on health care than any other country and gets just average results out of it. Must be that nationalized inefficiency in the U.S. health care system compared with the free market approach in about every other developed country.
Competing based on IPv6 saturation? I guess the US is doing pretty well for not even trying.
I suspect IPv6 adoption isn't nearly as critical for the US as it is for other countries. As the US controls an obscene portion of the IPv4 address space.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
The reason we have a low IPv6 adoption rate is because ISPs such as AT&T just don't try to upgrade. Their users want IPv6 support, but the ISPs won't deliver.
while
Yes.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I also figure some folks will specifically request them in the future just for the reason of them not being assigned to a specific PC within a network. I haven't seen a designated IPv4 end date in the specs or whatnot. As DHCP doesn't forward the local machine's private address there's some measure of difficulty in ascertaining the actual PC the requests originated from and people may see that as a value added service. As you mentioned, there's bound to be legacy devices for ages. I'd actually guess that you're estimate of 20-30 years is probably pretty accurate.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Sadly the US is not at the fourth place. Germany and Belgium have a higher IPv6 adaption as well.
US tries very hard to save extremely premature infants and also very ill older people,
Prolonging the suffering of patients. That is sick.
Murdering people against their will is even sicker, and seems to be what you are advocating for.
While I appreciate you giving me the OK to murder you without cause or further consent, I on the other hand refuse to lower myself to your level to do so.
If you are talking about just him, all he needs is a /64. 2001:db8:85a3:42::/64 would be all his, and then within that, he has 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 addresses that he can assign. Yeah, 2001:db8 is reserved for documentation and meant to be used as an example. But there are plenty more where that came from.
If you are talking about the nation as a whole, then let's assume that you are assigning Class A blocks to everybody, similar to the early days of IPv4. The IANA allocates it currently in /16 and /24 blocks, which is why ARIN has numbers like 2001:0200::/23 or 2600::/12. In the first case, there are 16 times as many Class B addresses as in the entire IPv4 space, assuming the ARIN policy of /48 to each subscriber, while in the latter case, there would be 16 times as many Class As as in the entire IPv4.
It's because Switzerland needs all those extra bits in which to hide money that is illegally stored in their banks.
I would have thought the US would have been near the bottom.
lose != loose
The 'poor and their children' have a better chance of getting /64 IPv6 links than they have of getting routable IPv4 addresses.
Cute, but socializing the costs will not fix the problem of high cost. It will just mean that the costs will be paid through taxes. Not much of an improvement. Find a better argument for socialism.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
It actually counts the complete amount of money spent on health care, through private means and through taxes (it even makes a difference between private spending and spending through taxes and other public money, so you can compare the shares). And there the U.S. invests 50% more than every other country on Earth.
Even after accounting for all money that flows into health care, the U.S. system is horribly inefficient compared to any other system.